Louise's UK Recruiter Blog

Why Recruiters Don't Use Psychometrics

Ages ago I thought I'd start a series of psychometric testing.  I got as far as an initial post talking about experiences and asking a question around why recruiters don't use them as much as they could.
 
Very late as it is; here is a summary of the many interesting responses I got:
 
Overconfidence in their own abilities as a recruiter
 
Recruiters can overestimate how successfully they can predict job success using traditional methods. Research has shown that using CV's to screen applicants for interview has a success rate not much greater than using the applicant's horoscope (i.e. none at all). Studies show that using our psychometric instrument to screen applicants will dramatically increase the likelihood of selecting the right people, but I've found that many recruiters don't seem to believe (or understand!) the figures. 
 
Cost
 
One reason I've often struggled to get authorisation to use psychometric tools is that it is seen as an upfront cost that sits like an ugly troll on the balance sheet, whereas the impact of poor recruitment can often be hard to quantify. Followed up with...  Companies that have worked out the cost of a poor recruitment decision have no problem justifying the use of decent quality tests. This is particularly true when used for sales recruitment as the cost of a poor recruitment decision is so obviously manifest in the subsequent below-par sales results. 
 
Fear of losing a placement
 
As for the use of tests by agencies, there is an inherent conflict of interest therein. Agencies get rewarded on placement so why should they put any barrier between a marginal candidate and a placement fee (such as an adverse indicating test result)? 
 
Lack of understanding of which product to use
 
There are many good reasons to be sceptical of tests. Many are not much better than a horoscope and many are misunderstood and badly used. For example, how many people know the difference between an ipsative and normative test? Answer, very few. 
 
Apathy
 
It's far easier NOT to implement a new system than to take the (even short amount of) time to look for something to improve your process.
 
If you have any other comments let me know..... and if you want to understand how YOU can use psychometric products in your (or your clients') recruitment process I'm happy to have a chat!

The follow up article will be Why Recruiters Use Psyhometrics...

Psychometrics – the pre-amble/ramble

I’ve decided to write a mini series of blog posts on psychometric assessment seeing as it’s something I know about (and a service I offer to recruiters).  However, in starting the series I realised I might need to give a bit of background so here it is….

Over 15 years ago I worked for an Executive Search company called Highfield.  At that point the average salary they placed at was probably c£50,000 and would have been in the consumer goods or business services sectors.  They also did some more junior levels on mass – recruiting via assessment centres.

The MD was ex Mars and long versed in the use of psychometric assessment as part of the recruitment process.  I presume he’d previously used SHL (who were at the time market leaders in the UK) as that was the company selected to work with.  The cost of getting trained by SHL was in the region of £4000 per person….. and I was the person.  So off I went on two separate week long residential courses to learn how to run psychometric and aptitude tests. 

Over the next five or so years I helped to develop and run many assessment centres and assessed the final interview stage candidates of many assignments.

 The consultants at Highfield never seemed concerned that giving psychometric feedback to a client would have a detrimental affect on their chances of placement.  Perhaps they were right to be confident in their ability to assess and match candidates – or perhaps (and it was the bullish 90s) they were a tiny bit cocky.    However, I do know (remembered from my training with SHL) that interview alone only gives a 10% chance of selecting the right person.  Adding in situational based assessments, aptitude tests (verbal, numerical, etc) and psychometrics each increase that chance of getting (and keeping) the right person. 

A few things have changed since my days at Highfield. I no longer use SHL as my primary psychometric product provider (I use Saville now and will probably touch on why in a later post),  the majority of the clients I work with are now corporate’s rather than recruiters and the internet have provided an opportunity for any company to run “psychometric” testing for peanuts.  … But more on that at a future date!

So as I said at the start I’ve decided to write a few blog posts on psychometric assessment.

In order to give me a few ideas I’ve asked, on LinkedIn, for the reasons recruiters (inhouse as well as agency) don't use them as much as they could - feel free to add your comments.